Semantics: A Tool for Shaping

Semantics: A Tool for Shaping Public Opinion in the Age of the Internet

What People Are Talking About on the Internet

A quick Google or other internet search engine search of "forums" returns not hundreds or thousands, but millions of sites related to internet public forums for what has become known as internet chat. This begs the question: What are people talking about? They are talking about topics of public interest: weight reduction, hobbies, like art and photography; but there are literally millions of political forums. People are, more than ever before in history, talking about and sharing ideas on their political representation on a world-wide scale. Discussions, debates, even heated arguments about political leadership are going on between people who have never met one another face-to-face are taking place every minute of everyday. The discussions, debates, and arguments are from the perspective of people analyzing every word being spoken by presidents, representatives of the United Nations, and even news journalists who are today, again, more so than ever before seemingly affiliated more with political ideologies than they are with reporting just the news. This means that the public is examining, analyzing, and sharing ideas and thoughts about the semantics of the political lexicon.

Politicians and world leaders alike tend to use semantics as a political tool to persuade their constituents to their point-of-view on subjects of government and world affairs. Before the internet, the publics' base of discourse was their immediate families, friends, and other associates, who might, or might not be interested in engaging in political discourse with them. The internet has changed this. Today, for the millions of internet sites devoted to political chat, there are millions more individuals visiting those sites for the specific purpose of engaging in the examination and analysis of their leaders' semantics, and asking the question: What did it mean?

The purpose of this qualitative study is to examine and understand how political semantics are being interpreted by the public, and how the sharing of information via the internet is shaping the public's opinions about their leaders and world events. This essay will seek to answer the questions: How are semantics utilized by world leaders to influence and to gain the support of public opinion? How are those efforts facilitated or hindered by the public's access to information and discourse via the internet?

Political Semantics

Semantics is the study of the nature of words as they are used by people; the meaning, the inferences through classifying and understanding the changing meanings of words as they used by people during conversations and discourse. Politicians and world leaders have long utilized semantics -- indeed, created an art in the use of political semantics. Political scientists and authors Ofer Feldman and Christ'l de Landtsheer (1998) say that understanding political semantics means looking to the characteristics, nature, and of the language used by world leaders (p. ix). This concept is exemplified by America's former president, William Jefferson Clinton, when, in 1998, testifying before a Grand Jury investigating inappropriate behavior with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky; Clinton testified that he did not lie when he said he did not have an inappropriate relationship with the intern because:

"It depends on what the meaning of the word is . . . If 'is' means is and never has been, that is not -- that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement (Youtube, at Youtube, 2009, video, found online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaZBm-d5Yqs&feature=related."

Clinton went on to explain his rationale to the jury, saying that if someone had questioned him as to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of his relationship with the intern, ". . . asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true (Youtube, at Youtube, 2009, video, found online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaZBm-d5Yqs&feature=related)."

Clinton's remarks to the jury were published in a transcript that was circulated on the internet, and then the video tape of Clinton testifying and making the comments circulated the internet, and, today, is found on Youtube.com. It circulates the internet today not so much because people are unaware that Mr. Clinton took an oath on the Christian Bible to tell the truth, and then lied, but because it represents to the American people that they cannot take on its face value the words of their elected officials, and must analyze and look to the meaning of even small words like "is" that might completely alter the meaning of the truth. In the case of Clinton, it was employment of semantics to mitigate the public reaction to his inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky; even to deceive the public as to the truth.

A second example of political semantics comes, once again, through the presidency and diplomacy of the Clinton Administration. In 1994, when the Rwandan Hutu embarked upon a systematic annihilation of the Tutsi in Rwanda, the United States, under the Clinton administration, elected not to intervene in the violence that was described by people in and outside of Rwanda as "genocide (Zeleza and McConnaughy,, p. 179).

"Members of the Clinton administration from former Secretary of State Warren Christopher to Madeleine Albright, then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, could not bring themselves to call the killings (of the Tutsi by the Hutus) genocide. Under international law, the United States was obligated to prevent genocide, and thus, should have intervened in Rwanda (Roth 1998:41) (Zeleza and McConnaughy, p. 179)."

Instead, the Clinton administration worked around the definition of genocide, which was evidenced by the mass killings, and instead referred to the violence as "a longstanding tribal conflict (p. 179)." The word "genocide" was succinctly avoided in an employment of political semantics, because the word "genocide" would have triggered a public reaction that, in 1994, could have adversely impacted Clinton's upcoming re-election efforts.

In 1994, when the events unfolded in Rwanda, the use of the internet was not at the heightened, almost frenzied, level of information utilization as it is today. The Rwandan genocide of the Tutsis, however, will, today, return 2,640,000 sites for information on the subject. The pressure brought to bear as a result of public opinion and continuing discourse on the subject no doubt played a part in Clinton's subsequent apology (albeit years later) to the Rwandan people, as well as his frequent public responses to questions about those events that have caused Clinton to repeatedly and publicly state that he "regrets" Rwanda.

Political scientist and author Mika LaVaque-Manty (2002) says, ". . . The salience criterion for a micro-level political act is not a direct causal line, but, rather, depends on what we might loosely call "political semantics (p. 20)." LaVaque-Manty holds that people by way of their actions today are a manifestation at a macro-level of political action as instrumental action (p. 20). In other words, the actions of the public in their daily lives is a manifestation of the micro-level political semantics and how people interpret the characteristics, nature, and meaning of the words employed by political leaders.

I would argue that the internet facilitates how people today interpret the characteristics, nature, and meaning of political semantics. That the free flowing and unregulated discourse and exchange of ideas in an anonymous world forum informs, influences, and shapes the public perception about world leaders and events today.

The Public Arena of the World Wide Web

Today, nearly everyone either has a home computer, a laptop computer, or access to the internet, allowing them read and engage in conversation with people around the world concerning issues of political concern such as the wars being waged by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan; global warming; nuclear proliferation in third world countries that did not have nuclear weapon capabilities until after the Cold War;

the human genome project (cloning and stem cell research) and, especially since September 11, 2001, religion and Muslim peoples. The intense public interest surrounding these topics of discussion has put political semantics under the public's microscope: the internet. Leaders of once independent nations are now finding their leadership and views subject to world opinion.

The cultural, religious, political and academic diversity of people utilizing the internet today as source for information about political and world leaders and events is immeasurable. Everyone, from the highest academicians, scholars, scientists, and physicians, to young intermediary level students, parents, to shopkeepers, factory workers, field workers, military personnel, and even third world countries where many people would not readily think of as having internet access, are using the internet.

In the book the Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate, author Nancy Pearcey (Johnson and Pearcey, 2004) writes that she woke early on September 11, 2001, to check the daily news on her computer (p. 107). No longer do people turn first to televised news programs or even print media for their daily news. They, like Pearcey, go to their computers and look for the most up-to-date and up-to-the-moment news updates. As quickly as events occur around the world, people, not necessarily journalists are reporting on those events. They're discussing them, talking to people from around the glove where the events unfolded, and then creating chat forums to engage in intellectual debate and sharing of ideas. They are talking about what the news media is reporting, whether or not it is slanted toward a political ideology, and assessing the information. Everyone, it seems, has faster access to broader sources of news and ideas, and they are using that information to form ideas and conclusions about political leaders and how those leaders respond to local, national, and world situations, people, and events.

How the Public Interprets Political Semantics and Use the Internet to Impact Policy and Government

One of the most significant examples of how the internet has facilitated the public's access to information, and how people world-wide have analyzed political semantics and used the information to shape policy and government is the second term of America's former President George W. Bush. The words "weapons of mass destruction," were used by the Bush administration to justify the use of America's own arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and its invasion of Iraq (Woodward, pp. 345-347). Two days before then President Bush was to appear before the United Nations to deliver a speech, and to gain UN support for his actions; White House senior officials, including Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, reviewed Bush's speech Draft #21, and debated the words, political semantics, of the words ask, action, and the term weapons of mass destruction (p. 347). It was, Colin Powell held, not just enough to explain the president's action(s), but it was necessary Powell said, to "ask for something (pp. 346-347)." Draft #21 was referred to as the "ask (p. 346)." The phrase "to meet our common challenge (p. 347)," was also a key phrase used by the president.

Later, in the aftermath of the destruction of Iraq, the American public engaged in extensive "chat" about "weapons of mass destruction." Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were ". . . what this war was about (p. 95)." When no such weapons were uncovered in Iraq, the question, "Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" was bandied about internet chat rooms by Americans, the British, and people around the world. When a Polish reporter who was granted an interview with President Bush "prodded him: But still, those countries that did not support the Iraqi Freedom Operation still use the same argument -- weapons of mass destruction have not been found (pp. 95-96)," Bush replied: "We found weapons of mass destruction" . . . asserting that two mobile laboratories "to build biological weapons had been located (p. 96).'" Bush's comments were reiterated by senior White House staff, including Condoleeza Rice (p. 96).

In the instance of weapons of mass destruction, the term devolved politically from one inferred by the American and world public as meaning nuclear capability and threat, to biological warfare laboratories, but no biological weapons. The employment of political semantics is used to motivate, sway, and build public trust and opinion, but in the age of the internet, the terms are dissected, analyzed, and rationalized by the public. In the case of weapons of mass destruction that were never found in Iraq, world opinion became an anti-American world reaction.

"Where are those weapons of mass destruction," became the question asked around the globe, and was perhaps the single most factor in bringing down the American Republican party in the 2008 presidential election. But it did not just impact the American presidency; Britain's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who supported the Bush Administration in their invasion of Iraq, also succumbed to the public opinion and the British peoples' resentment of Bush's misrepresentation of facts so that he could justify invading a sovereign nation.

Even today, putting the words "weapons of mass destruction chat," yield 1,590,000 returns on the Google search engine. People are still debating the meaning, characteristics, and nature of the words. Also, the words, having significant meaning to the public, are used to emphasize a destructive force, like computer viruses. The public has agreed that the meaning of the words have a significant and specific meaning that cannot be altered through the use of clever political semantics.

Internet sites devoted to decoding political semantics have become popular on the internet. Language Log, found at http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004862.html is a site where political semantics are explained and analyzed by people. It "quizzes" the public on their knowledge of political semantics. National Public Radio (NPR) provides podcasts, and commentaries, and invite public opinion in analyzing and discussing political semantics (NPR, 2009, found online at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104782089. PDF documents written by scholars and non-scholars alike are published to the internet that share ideas and information on political semantics, analyzing world events and leaders. The war in Iraq has more than 4,000,000 sites dedicated to British chat on the war in Iraq. The words "world economic crisis" yields more than a million sites for people to engage in discussion and to exchange ideas and information on the current financial crisis. As people share and receive information around the globe, they form conclusions that influence their decisions in electing political leaders, and voice their support, or lack thereof, for the need to take action, or not to do so; and their political leaders are finding politics as usual is no longer a matter of giving speeches and tossing around political semantics to gain public support. The public is examining every word, every phrase, and, in the case of former President Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, turning those semantics around in the form of questions that if they cannot be answered, the politicians will experience political demise.

Conclusion

The internet has become a source for analyzing and dissecting political semantics, and people are impacting public policy and causing political leaders to bend to the will of not just their constituents in their nation-states, but world public opinion. We can see that with the current American President Barak Obama's administration. Obama's political promise of a "transparent" government has been widely discussed and debated as to the meaning, characteristic, and nature of the word "transparent." A Google search of the words "chat forum Obama transparent government," yields more than 2,000,000 sites that discuss and invite discussion on the meaning of "transparency" in the American government. Many of the discussions are negative, people -- not just Americans -- do not believe that the Obama administration is fulfilling its promise of a transparent government. This has been a source of irritation for the American Democratic Party; especially in the area of the financial crisis in the West and Mr. Obama's national healthcare plan.